Loss of two meter simplex frequencies IMMINENT in Texas!

Loss of two meter simplex frequencies EMINENT in Texas!


Texas two meter simplex users stand to lose a large portion of available frequencies if proposed changes to the two meter band plan are passed by the Texas VHF-FM Society.

In an effort to make room for D-Star repeater pairs, the Society has proposed a revised band plan that will take spectrum from two meter simplex users statewide.
Below is the band plan being proposed by the Texas VHF-FM Society:
146.450 - 146.490 MHz, High in/low out, 1 MHz offset, 12.5 kHz channel spacing or less, any
digital voice/data air interface technology suitable for the Amateur Radio Service that is compatible with the channel spacing. No analog transmission permitted.
145.520 Analog
145.540 Analog
145.560 Analog
145.580 Analog
145.600 Analog
145.620 Analog
145.640 Analog
145.660 Analog
145.680 Analog
145.700 Analog
145.720 Analog
145.740 Analog
145.760 Analog
145.780 Analog
146.420 Analog
146.440 Analog
146.450 Digital }
146.460 Digital }
146.470 Digital }--------------- Simplex allocations that will be lost due to proposed restructuring.
146.480 Digital }
146.490 Digital }
146.560 Analog
146.580 Analog
147.400 Analog
147.420 Analog
147.440 Analog
147.450 Digital }
147.460 Digital }
147.470 Digital }-------------- Simplex allocations that will be lost due to proposed restructuring.
147.480 Digital }
147.490 Digital }
147.560 Analog
147.580 Analog


This proposal was placed on the table at the March 1, 2008 General Meeting of the Texas VHF-FM Society and has yet to be voted on, possibly due to opposition from avid simplex users.

Contrary to public opinion, two meter simplex frequencies are regularly, and in some cases heavily used throughout the state.

A well-established group of simplex operators in north and east Texas have used the frequency of 147.420 on a daily basis since the mid 1970’s. While that frequency is not in immediate danger of being reallocated, other well used frequencies are!

A group of simplex operators around the Cedar Creek Lake area in eastern Texas that regularly use the frequency of 146.475 stands to lose that piece of spectrum.

146.500 is another frequency currently being used on a regular basis by hams from Dallas all the way down into the Waco area that is on the chopping block.

I’m sure there are many more frequencies all across the state that are in use that we do not know about! If anyone knows of other simplex frequencies in use in the state of Texas please feel free to e-mail me at WX5VHF@gmail.com

In an effort to display the utilization of these simplex frequencies I am asking for all Texas two meter simplex operators to attend and cast a vote at the Texas VHF-FM Society’s Summer Meeting that will take place at Austin Summerfest 2011. The meeting will be held Saturday, August 6th at 1:00PM in the Pecan Room of the Austin Marriott Airport South at 4415 South Interstate 35 in Austin.
In order to vote at this meeting you MUST be a member of the Society! To become a member you must download the form from the link below and send it back with $15.00. (I guess it’s sort of like a poll tax?)

www.txvhffm.com/images/Forms/membership application.pdf

I believe I speak for most all avid simplex operators when I say, I am in no way anti D-Star. New technology and operating modes are the life blood of amateur radio. What I am against is reallocation of simplex spectrum as repeater pairs! D-star or analog, a repeater is a repeater and should be placed on frequencies that are already allocated for that purpose. If all of the repeater pairs are in use then get on the waiting list; just as analog repeater owners do. What is the rush?

Hams always say “Use it, or lose it” when it comes to radio spectrum. Well, this time it’s being used and we still may lose it!

Aaron Scott
WX5VHF

 

--Wow, I didn't know there were that many people in TX using D-Star. I guess I will have to look up a site that lists all those D-Star repeaters there.

 

Do you mean 'Imminent'?

1. [h=3]im·mi·nent/ˈimənənt/[/h]Adjective: About to happen: "imminent danger". More »
   Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster
   
   

73,
AA8Gk

 

How many times have we seen D-star stuff for sale on qrz and other sites? If present analog repeater owners do not want to buy D star equipment that's up to them. Seems not many analog owners don't want to convert to D-star and that is up to them. Now the D-star junkies want the simplex frequencies to convert them to D-star. What next, the 220 and 440 also?

 

Now there is a sure fire way to limit your opposition if you are pro allocation on this one...

... just make your opposition pay 15.00 per head to your cause which is the one
trying to take freqs away... then they can vote NAY....
Somethin smellin' might fishy in TEXAS..... Ya'll gonna stand for that?

How many of the already allocated pairs are NOT IN USE or BARELY IN USE?

Bryan
K6BIG

PS Imminent Danger

 

If D-STAR is more popular in Texas than simplex Analog, why not let them use it. Anyway, I was under the impression that band plans were really only a guideline of suggestions. If you still wanted to use those frequencies as simplex, you could. But if you say that would cause a fight, I won't disagree.

 

I had always heard, read, and been assured that D-Star would share existing repeater spectrum.

Since when is analog repeater use so dense that it precludes the addition of D-Star repeaters in the existing repeater segment? (Either replacing decommissioned analog repeaters, using repeater pairs that have been hoarded for years but which remain unused - a form of Ham eminent-domain taking, or slipping in-between existing repeater pairs.)

Is this proposal technologically-defensible, as necessary and unavoidable, or just a spectrum-grab by a tiny minority in the hobby?

It may be that this is necessary and unavoidable to support a large number of active D-Star repeaters and users - if so then simplex users may need to adapt to less spectrum - but it's very likely that there is a middle ground between no change and such a large change.

These are questions that need to be asked and answered for every proposed change to spectrum use - not only this one.

The interest of Hams outside of Texas is that this could represent a precedent which may create conflict in the hobby across the nation, unless the facts and rationale are communicated well.

IMHO, YMMV ...

 

Anytime something like this happens, especially when there is only a single manufacturer of hardware involved, I can't help wondering if that manufacturer isn't involved somehow...

 

I was a member of that society for a short time.
The organization was not run by adult acting people.

 

I agree - it's curious and frankly, not everyone wants to own an Icom product.

 

I applaud your call to action to reasonably defend your position. I hope you are successful in your endeavor.

More broadly, I would simply like to point out that the presumed or assumed level of authority of local coordination bodies is often over blown. Part 97 only indirectly mentions the administrative relevance of coordination in the context of interfering auxiliary stations 97.201 (c) and interfering repeater stations 97.205 (c) to a LIKE station. In both cases, the only weight of the coordinating body is to place the burden of resolution on the uncoordinated interfering auxiliary station or repeater station, as appropriate.

Should the efforts of prescribing band plans and conducting repeater or auxiliary station coordination result in interference between these station types and OTHER station types, the rules make no provisions for any administrative role, capacity,relevance, or standing of the coordinating body. Interference between repeaters/auxiliary stations and OTHER amateur station types is governed by largely by 97.101 (d) which prohibits willful or malicious interference. With the exception of spread spectrum transmissions, all other part 97 regulatory references regarding interference deal with secondary allocations, etc.

It is incumbent on the amateur radio community to reach voluntary agreements to prevent interference wherever possible which is why I applaud your proactive approach. It is however clear, that the coordinating body cannot procedurally trump simplex operation in as much as a repeater/auxiliary station has no special frequency privileges granted compared to a simplex station - despite the stated, implied, threatened, or inferred conditions of many to the contrary. In the event of disagreement within your region, part 97.101 (d) is the final regulation - and one that is applicable to all station types, coordinated or not.

- Glenn DJ0IQ and W9IQ

 

There's plenty of room for simplex users. Simplex can be reused every few miles, and still plenty of channels left. Simplex can be used on channels not being used in the area for repeaters.

I don't see a problem. Dozens of channels available for simplex use. How many are really needed?

Joe

 

That's the problem, there AREN'T that many people on D-star. IMO this is a case of the $ pushing the apple cart. Very few on D-star down in the valley, and the next question I have is: Who are the folks making up this "mandatory" band plan? Only the FCC can tell us what freq's and modes we can or can't use. D-star is a rich mans toy.

 

Lets face it people D star aint radio, semantics? no.

 

Follow the money!